Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Devika Bai And Ors. (L.Rs. Of Ram ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 11 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)MPHT289
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. After filing this petition in the year 1993, the petitioner expired on 15-4-2001. An application for bringing legal representatives on record has been filed. Arguments on that application are heard. The application is hereby allowed. Necessary amendment he carried out today only.
2. The petitioner who is a low paid employee and was serving on the post of Peon has assailed his order of dismissal (Annexure A-ll), dated 25-8-1992 passed by Collector, Tikamgarh. The order was affirmed in appeal by Commissioner, Sagar vide order dated 20-4-1993 (Annexure A-14).
3. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, if the report of enquiry officer as well as the punishment order is read in proper perspective and in the realm of facts and circumstances, it would reveal that no charge has been proved against the petitioner. According to learned Counsel though the findings arc not against the petitioner, even then he has been punished by the extreme penalty, by dismissing his services.
4. Two departmental enquiries were initiated against two persons, namely, present petitioner Ram Swaroop Chaturvedi and Lakhanpuri Goswami. It be seen that Lakhanpuri Goswami at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of LDC/Despatch Clerk while the petitioner was serving under him on the post of Peon. The case of petitioner is that certain files which were packed and were formed in a shape of bundles were required to be despatched to the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. The enquiry officer on the basis of evidence found that files were packed in a shape of bundles and those bundles were lying on the table of Lakhanpuri Goswami. It has also come in the order of enquiry officer as well as in the order of Collector that only stamps were required to be affixed and the despatch clerk was required to despatch the record. The finding of enquiry officer as well as of Collector who is punishing authority, is that the bundles in which records were kept were lying in the possession of Lakhanpuri. Even then the disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal against the petitioner -
5. It be seen that said Lakhanpuri Goswami was also dismissed from service by Collector vide order dated 18-8-1992 (Annexure A-8).
6. Shri Trivedi has invited my attention to Annexure A- 15, dated 2-12-1994 filed along with the rejoinder and has submitted that anyhow the matter was travelled up to the State Government which passed an order by interfering in quantum of punishment and in pursuance to the said order Shri Goswami was punished by withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect. On going through the said order (Annexure A-15), it is gathered that the case of petitioner was not forwarded to the State Government because in Para 2 of the said order, State Government asked the subordinate authorities that what had happened to the present petitioner and whether he was subjected to departmental enquiry or not. Thus, the case of petitioner was never considered by the State Government.
7. The alternative contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since Lakhanpuri Goswami as well as petitioner, both of them were punished by the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, therefore, if a lesser punishment has been awarded to Shri Lakhanpuri Goswami, the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment.
8. I have gone through the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the punishment order passed by Collector dismissing the services of petitioner. After giving my bestowed consideration on these two documents, it is revealed that the record was lying on the table of clerk/despatch clerk Lakhanpuri Goswami and it was in his possession and therefore, if in between the record has been missed, the petitioner can not be held to be responsible.
9. Though ordinarily this Court is not required to see minute detail but when the finding is not pointing any guilt towards the petitioner, on the other hand it has been found that the record was in possession of Lakhanpuri Goswami, according to me, the imposition of extreme punishment of dismissal from service is ex facie illegal. Indeed, no charge has been found to be proved against the present petitioner.
10. Ex consequently this petition is allowed with costs. The punishment order passed by Collector, dated 25-8-1992 (Annexure A-l 1) is quashed and the order passed by appellate authority, dated 20-4" 1993 (Annexure A-4) is also hereby quashed. Respondents shall issue necessary orders within a period of three months from today and the legal representatives of petitioner may be benefited in the same manner as if the petitioner's services would not have been terminated, with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall bear the costs of the petition. Counsel fee Rs. 2000/-, if pro-certified.